If you add the women and ethnic minorities together, they make up more than half the Democratic House delegation.

New Hampshire has an entirely female Congressional delegation and a Democratic governor.

Colorado and Washington State have legalized weed.

Maine, Maryland, and Washington State have adopted gay marriage. Minnesota has rejected an amendment banning it. Nine states have legalized same-sex marriage now.

California has given super-majorities in both houses to the Democrats, allowing them for the first time since 1978 to deal with the radical anti-tax amendment.

Latinos and Asians have finally made their voice heard in decisive numbers and it is not in favor of the GOP.

LBJ famously said that he was handing the South to the GOP when he signed the Voting Rights Bill for a generation in '64. Is that generation now passed (in terms of decisive political power)? Is America's long night of racist nightmare over, taking with it its ally Trickle-Down-Laffer-Curve- Supply-Side Reaganism?

Did the stake driven through the heart of Reaganism turn out to be a trans-vaginal probe? (Ick!)

It does look like it. In the Elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012, Democrats have won pluralities or majorities. Only in 2004 has the GOP won--and that was probably only because of the dubious victory of '00. This has not been as decisive a victory as 1980 or 1932, not yet. But each year, more white male bigots die off and another year's cohort of young more liberal kids join the electorate. Even the young evangelicals voted more liberally than their parents.

Ah me. I remember January 20, 1969. I was in Berkeley and feeling pretty down. Nixon was at his inaugural and I couldn't imagine the future of my country dominated by bigots. I was a sophomore in college and I shuddered at the thought of the next chunk of my life under his administration. I felt even worse on Jan. 20, 1981 when Reagan was elected. (I remembered him standing on that balcony in Berkeley giving the finger to the students who wanted some classes about their ethnic heritage; but even more, I remembered those squadrons of cops with their billy clubs marching toward us...and being trapped in that alley off Telegraph with the cops trying to catch us up against that wooden fence.) I remember January 20, 1984 and how bad I felt because the economy recovered enough from the mess we were in just before and knowing with a sinking heart that the improvement meant he would be re-elected.

But the Republic survived the lies Nixon told about Vietnam; the Republic survived Watergate; the Republic survived Iran-Contra; the Republic has survived Afghanistan/Iraq.

I do sympathize with conservatives. I really do. I had to wait 44 years for the Republic to recover it's trajectory into the future. It's been a long slow slog. Along about (2012 + 44 = 2052) 2052 (give or take) you will get to feel the same sense of vindication I feel now.

I'd say those silly seccession petitions are perfect example that there is a liberal governing coalition in place; otherwise far-right conservatives wouldn't want to leave the union.

Personally, I see this as the not-surprising outcome of the Republican's rhetoric of how Obama will ruin the country. Gov. Perry now is distancing himself from these not-so-mainstream people and it shows that Gov. Perry is smarter than he looked during the Republican primaries.

Republicans need to sober-up and look at the mob they are leading and ask themselves if this is what they want the U.S. to look like? I don't think they do.

It is time for responsible government not anti-government. To me, that is what the electorate asked for. For example, a government that could respond to huricanes. That is what the electorate wanted - responsible government - not "wacky."

It is time for responsible government not anti-government. To me, that is what the electorate asked for. For example, a government that could respond to huricanes. That is what the electorate wanted - responsible government - not "wacky."

A government that can respond to hurricanes? Really?? How about friends, families, and communities banding together to take care of themselves? Is that such a "wacky" notion? Honestly, the type of mind that thinks such things should be handled by the leviathan state is baffling to me.

You say it is time for responsible government, and I say we live in a time where people are far too dependent on government already. It is time for individual responsibility (which is the price of liberty), not anti-individualism (which is what collectivism is at its very core).

It is time for responsible government not anti-government. To me, that is what the electorate asked for. For example, a government that could respond to huricanes. That is what the electorate wanted - responsible government - not "wacky."

A government that can respond to hurricanes? Really?? How about friends, families, and communities banding together to take care of themselves? Is that such a "wacky" notion? Honestly, the type of mind that thinks such things should be handled by the leviathan state is baffling to me.

You say it is time for responsible government, and I say we live in a time where people are far too dependent on government already. It is time for individual responsibility (which is the price of liberty), not anti-individualism (which is what collectivism is at its very core).

Because local communities are prepared to rebuild massive infrastructure by themselves, or take care of things like airlifts, especially when people's lives are in danger and there needs to be an immediate response?

Because local communities are prepared to rebuild massive infrastructure by themselves, or take care of things like airlifts, especially when people's lives are in danger and there needs to be an immediate response?

What massive infrastructures? The federal government is not needed for that.

As for airlifts etc., the national guard can be mobilized at a local or state level, but I have no use for FEMA whatsoever. Overall, I would much rather rely on my friends, family, and community (and hopefully be prepared for the disaster in the first place). If the central government is so adept at saving lives, care to show me some examples, hm?

Because local communities are prepared to rebuild massive infrastructure by themselves, or take care of things like airlifts, especially when people's lives are in danger and there needs to be an immediate response?

What massive infrastructures? The federal government is not needed for that.

As for airlifts etc., the national guard can be mobilized at a local or state level, but I have no use for FEMA whatsoever. Overall, I would much rather rely on my friends, family, and community (and hopefully be prepared for the disaster in the first place). If the central government is so adept at saving lives, care to show me some examples, hm?

I'm not saying the Feds are great, but the idea of a neighborhood organizing air lifts or immediate emergency responses was laughable. Since you mentioned the national guard and state level response, I'll leave your post alone, and just note that I think that in some cases the Feds should be prepared to act, and that I'm fine to just disagree with you on that.

A government andthat is in the pocket of Wall Street, engages in drone warfare, continues to have provisions from the Patriot Act, Gitmo, War in Afghanistan, War on Drugs, and so on and so on is hardly one people that I would call liberal.

However a coalition that thinks because they can have abortions, gay marriage, and a weak government health plan that somehow they've achieved some sort of liberal consensus and beaten "the man" is a coalition I would call moronic.

Congratulations! Gay's can marry and abortion is available. Oh the elites are quaking in their boots!

Since you mentioned the national guard and state level response, I'll leave your post alone, and just note that I think that in some cases the Feds should be prepared to act, and that I'm fine to just disagree with you on that.

I think the point is (as usual) that there's nothing the Feds can do better than the State or local government, except for national defense, interstate commerce regulations, and preventing States from violating citizens' Constitutional rights.

Ironic that the Founders got it so right in the beginning, yet we've gone exponentially in the opposite direction over the past decades.

Since you mentioned the national guard and state level response, I'll leave your post alone, and just note that I think that in some cases the Feds should be prepared to act, and that I'm fine to just disagree with you on that.

I think the point is (as usual) that there's nothing the Feds can do better than the State or local government, except for national defense, interstate commerce regulations, and preventing States from violating citizens' Constitutional rights.

Ironic that the Founders got it so right in the beginning, yet we've gone exponentially in the opposite direction over the past decades.

I don't get the libertarian fetish for state governence, I mean government is government. It'd make more sense if it was an either:or thing, government or no government, but the idea that local or federal is better is strange. We've seen state based responses, and they have not been that impressive, and in most cases it's the local governments asking for help from the Feds. In the case of huge natural disasters the federal government simply has more available resources. Why is the distinction between federal and state so important to you?

Since you mentioned the national guard and state level response, I'll leave your post alone, and just note that I think that in some cases the Feds should be prepared to act, and that I'm fine to just disagree with you on that.

I think the point is (as usual) that there's nothing the Feds can do better than the State or local government, except for national defense, interstate commerce regulations, and preventing States from violating citizens' Constitutional rights.

Ironic that the Founders got it so right in the beginning, yet we've gone exponentially in the opposite direction over the past decades.

I don't get the libertarian fetish for state governence, I mean government is government. It'd make more sense if it was an either:or thing, government or no government, but the idea that local or federal is better is strange. We've seen state based responses, and they have not been that impressive, and in most cases it's the local governments asking for help from the Feds. In the case of huge natural disasters the federal government simply has more available resources. Why is the distinction between federal and state so important to you?

Comm overstates the case for preferring State gov't a bit.

Let me say that State gov't only has very moderate intrinsic benefits over Federal control. Its a bit more local, the constituents have a bit more say, and regional preferences are better reflected, and the bureaucracy tends to be less bloated.

There are some aspects of the modern Federal apparatus that should make us prefer State gov't even more: just as an example, the stranglehold the banks have over both parties almost allowed them to avoid a mortgage settlement pushed by State Attorney Generals, but eventually did permit the banks to draw on TARP money to pay off the settlements.

But the Federal gov't has several efficient programs that work better than any given State administration. I'll allow defenders to provide examples. I'm sure they exist.

Federalism should make us prefer State administration whenever possible. When State gov'ts commit abuses, the Federal gov't can act as a watchdog and impartially sit in judgment over State excesses. Federalism is the 4th dimension of checks and balances, and it works well when two branches overpower the third branch on the same level.

Since you mentioned the national guard and state level response, I'll leave your post alone, and just note that I think that in some cases the Feds should be prepared to act, and that I'm fine to just disagree with you on that.

I think the point is (as usual) that there's nothing the Feds can do better than the State or local government, except for national defense, interstate commerce regulations, and preventing States from violating citizens' Constitutional rights.

Ironic that the Founders got it so right in the beginning, yet we've gone exponentially in the opposite direction over the past decades.

I don't get the libertarian fetish for state governence, I mean government is government. It'd make more sense if it was an either:or thing, government or no government, but the idea that local or federal is better is strange. We've seen state based responses, and they have not been that impressive, and in most cases it's the local governments asking for help from the Feds. In the case of huge natural disasters the federal government simply has more available resources. Why is the distinction between federal and state so important to you?

Comm overstates the case for preferring State gov't a bit.

Let me say that State gov't only has very moderate intrinsic benefits over Federal control. Its a bit more local, the constituents have a bit more say, and regional preferences are better reflected, and the bureaucracy tends to be less bloated.

There are some aspects of the modern Federal apparatus that should make us prefer State gov't even more: just as an example, the stranglehold the banks have over both parties almost allowed them to avoid a mortgage settlement pushed by State Attorney Generals, but eventually did permit the banks to draw on TARP money to pay off the settlements.

But the Federal gov't has several efficient programs that work better than any given State administration. I'll allow defenders to provide examples. I'm sure they exist.

Federalism should make us prefer State administration whenever possible. When State gov'ts commit abuses, the Federal gov't can act as a watchdog and impartially sit in judgment over State excesses. Federalism is the 4th dimension of checks and balances, and it works well when two branches overpower the third branch on the same level.

I agree with this, but with the caveat that it depends on what state you are living in. Does anyone really think that the Mississippi government is that much better at their job than the Feds? I think part of my view comes from growing up in the south, state government allows for more extreme social movements to gain power, so in a sense the Feds job is to protect against regional preferences, which if allowed full sway would make the south even more backwards than it already is. This is getting turned on its head a bit with the recent gay marriage and pot legalization.

I don't get the libertarian fetish for state governence, I mean government is government.
...
In the case of huge natural disasters the federal government simply has more available resources. Why is the distinction between federal and state so important to you?

Why does the Federal government have more resources than voluntarily established interstate organizations would have? If citizens weren't saddled with Federal taxes, the States would be able to tax more and have those necessary resources without the extra bloat and unresponsiveness (and international occupation, and unaccountable corporatism) of the Federal government.

Another issue is the moral hazard that "the Feds will fix it" provides. I gladly pounced on governor Rick Perry when he dramatically cut firefighting budgets in Texas, then clamored for Federal assistance when fires destroyed large swaths of the State. Why pay for fire insurance if someone will come and rebuild your house regardless?

Leon wrote:

I think part of my view comes from growing up in the south, state government allows for more extreme social movements to gain power, so in a sense the Feds job is to protect against regional preferences, which if allowed full sway would make the south even more backwards than it already is. This is getting turned on its head a bit with the recent gay marriage and pot legalization.

I suppose I could have been more specific in my original post. Keeping States from "becoming even more backwards" generally fits under the Feds responsibility to protect the Constitutional rights of the People I think. And the current progress of marriage rights and drug legalization is exactly what I'm talking about with State governments doing it better.

Since you mentioned the national guard and state level response, I'll leave your post alone, and just note that I think that in some cases the Feds should be prepared to act, and that I'm fine to just disagree with you on that.

I think the point is (as usual) that there's nothing the Feds can do better than the State or local government, except for national defense, interstate commerce regulations, and preventing States from violating citizens' Constitutional rights.

Ironic that the Founders got it so right in the beginning, yet we've gone exponentially in the opposite direction over the past decades.

I don't get the libertarian fetish for state governence, I mean government is government. It'd make more sense if it was an either:or thing, government or no government, but the idea that local or federal is better is strange. We've seen state based responses, and they have not been that impressive, and in most cases it's the local governments asking for help from the Feds. In the case of huge natural disasters the federal government simply has more available resources. Why is the distinction between federal and state so important to you?

Comm overstates the case for preferring State gov't a bit.

Let me say that State gov't only has very moderate intrinsic benefits over Federal control. Its a bit more local, the constituents have a bit more say, and regional preferences are better reflected, and the bureaucracy tends to be less bloated.

There are some aspects of the modern Federal apparatus that should make us prefer State gov't even more: just as an example, the stranglehold the banks have over both parties almost allowed them to avoid a mortgage settlement pushed by State Attorney Generals, but eventually did permit the banks to draw on TARP money to pay off the settlements.

But the Federal gov't has several efficient programs that work better than any given State administration. I'll allow defenders to provide examples. I'm sure they exist.

Federalism should make us prefer State administration whenever possible. When State gov'ts commit abuses, the Federal gov't can act as a watchdog and impartially sit in judgment over State excesses. Federalism is the 4th dimension of checks and balances, and it works well when two branches overpower the third branch on the same level.

I agree with this, but with the caveat that it depends on what state you are living in. Does anyone really think that the Mississippi government is that much better at their job than the Feds? I think part of my view comes from growing up in the south, state government allows for more extreme social movements to gain power, so in a sense the Feds job is to protect against regional preferences, which if allowed full sway would make the south even more backwards than it already is. This is getting turned on its head a bit with the recent gay marriage and pot legalization.

I don't get the libertarian fetish for state governence, I mean government is government.
...
In the case of huge natural disasters the federal government simply has more available resources. Why is the distinction between federal and state so important to you?

Why does the Federal government have more resources than voluntarily established interstate organizations would have? If citizens weren't saddled with Federal taxes, the States would be able to tax more and have those necessary resources without the extra bloat and unresponsiveness (and international occupation, and unaccountable corporatism) of the Federal government.

Another issue is the moral hazard that "the Feds will fix it" provides. I gladly pounced on governor Rick Perry when he dramatically cut firefighting budgets in Texas, then clamored for Federal assistance when fires destroyed large swaths of the State. Why pay for fire insurance if someone will come and rebuild your house regardless?

Leon wrote:

I think part of my view comes from growing up in the south, state government allows for more extreme social movements to gain power, so in a sense the Feds job is to protect against regional preferences, which if allowed full sway would make the south even more backwards than it already is. This is getting turned on its head a bit with the recent gay marriage and pot legalization.

I suppose I could have been more specific in my original post. Keeping States from "becoming even more backwards" generally fits under the Feds responsibility to protect the Constitutional rights of the People I think. And the current progress of marriage rights and drug legalization is exactly what I'm talking about with State governments doing it better.

For every example of states doing it better I can think of more that are doing it worse. I'm wary of states rights people because most of them that I've met want it because it allows them to push their social agenda. I do see some benefits to increased state control in some areas, but don't think it's inherently better than federal government. Also, for natural disasters it makes sense that both Federal and Local governments should play a role, especially since many larger natural disaster affect more than one state.